| Revision as of 07:18, 4 August 2008 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 editsm →Dealing with false statements← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:07, 30 December 2024 edit undoJonesey95 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Mass message senders, Template editors373,946 editsm Fix Linter errors. | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div style="{{{style|text-align: center; width: 60%; margin: auto; padding: 1em; border: solid 2px gold; background-color: royalblue; color: white; font-weight: bold;}}}"><span style="letter-spacing: 5px;">{{{title|This user is taking a kit kat-break.}}}</span>{{#if:{{{1|}}}|<br /><br />{{{1}}}}}</div> | |||
| {{semi-retired|date=April 2008}} | |||
| ]{{bots|deny=DPL bot}} | |||
| {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| |counter = 6 | |||
| |algo = old(5d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:QuackGuru/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| == |
== Check sources == | ||
| www.scoop.it/t/the-future-of-e-cigarette | |||
| {{#if:|<div style="background:white; border:2px Blue solid; padding:12px;">|}} | |||
| {{#ifeq:|true|==|'''}}Greetings...{{#ifeq:|true|==|'''}} | |||
| <p>Hello, QuackGuru, and ''''']''''' | |||
| : To get started, click on the green welcome. | |||
| :: I hope you like it here and decide to stay!<!-- | |||
| -->{{#if:Xp54321|::: Xp54321|}}<!-- | |||
| -->{{#if:Xp54321|::::|:::}} Happy editing! ] (]) 21:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)</p> | |||
| {{#if:|</div>|}} | |||
| http://www.economist.com/topics/electronic-cigarettes | |||
| == Quackwatch == | |||
| QuackGuru, enough, you are now arguing with two different administrators about the definition of "revert". I recommend that you take a break, and avoid posting at ] for a day. If you disagree, I can upgrade this to a formal ban, but I'm hoping that simply asking you to take a break will suffice. Please go work on something else for awhile? --]]] 19:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/electronic-cigarettes/ | |||
| I think there was a misunderstanding. The text is sourced. | |||
| http://www.tobacco.org/ | |||
| I was in the middle of writing this comment. Can I finish posting this comment. | |||
| ==] of ]== | |||
| ::::::::This information was deleted. ''but criticizes its rhetorical style as "perhaps not the best way to win an argument, especially with serious-minded people."'' | |||
| ] | |||
| ::::::::Ludwigs2 restored the deleted information. | |||
| {{Quote box|quote=<p>If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read ].</p><p>You may want to consider using the ] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}} | |||
| ::::::::This was a revert by Ludwigs2. ] 19:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| The page ] has been speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This was done under ], because the page appeared to be an unambiguous ]. This page appeared to be a direct copy from https://medium.com/@seozenius/ayurveda-the-ancient-indian-system-of-medicine-is-based-on-the-principle-of-maintaining-a-balance-d37f47436f0d. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of ''information'', but not as a source of ''sentences''. This part is crucial: ''say it in your own words''. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators '''will be ]'''. | |||
| : I would rather that you didn't, because you are again mis-defining the term "revert". I am keeping close tabs on Ludwigs2's edits, and have been engaging him in discussion at his talkpage. If he makes a real revert, I assure you I'll be dealing with him very rapidly. --]]] 19:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Misplaced Pages to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you ''must'' verify that externally by one of the processes explained at ]. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see ] for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at ] for more details, or ask a question ]. | |||
| ::Ludwigs2 restored the identical part of the sentence that was previously deleted. It was a real revert. ] 19:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Still not a revert, because he substantially changed the paragraph. Yes the wording in that specific quote is the same, but it's a quote, so of course it is going to be the same. To call it a "revert", I'd want to see something that was more specific, where the edit obviously removed or re-added ''just'' the text in a previous edit, without changing anything else towards trying to find a compromise. --]]] 19:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Draft%3AAyurveda|deleting administrator}}, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at ]. <!-- Template:Db-copyvio-deleted --><!-- Template:Db-csd-deleted-custom --> ] (]) 11:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It was still a revert based on what is a revert. ] 20:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| === What is a revert? === | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ], to which you have , is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or if it should be ]. | |||
| The discussion will take place at ''']''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. | |||
| A ], in this context, means undoing, ''in whole or in part'', the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content, undoing ] (sometimes called "move warring"), undoing ] (sometimes called "]"), or recreating a page. | |||
| To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit ]. Delivered by '']'' (]) 01:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)<!-- User:SDZeroBot/AfD notifier/template --> | |||
| An editor does not have to perform ''the same'' revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted. | |||
| == <s>Copyvio on Health effects of electronic cigarettes</s> == | |||
| Please read ]. Ludwigs2 edit was a revert because Ludwigs2 . ] 20:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I am very familiar with 3RR. The definition of "restoring deleted content", would more apply to something like what Jossi did, which was just copy/pasting information in from a previous version of the article, but without making any attempt to change the text. Let me try and explain it another way: The goal of the editing conditions, is to help the editors on the page try to find a compromise wording. This will probably involve having some text by some editors, and some text by others. That's okay, and that's not a revert. Or to put it another way: If one editor adds "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ" to the article, and another editor deletes half, leaving "ABCDEFGHIJKLM", and then the first editor changes it to "ABCDEFGHIKJKLMSTUVXY", and then the other editor changes it to ABCDEFGHIJKLMNSUV", and the other editor says, "Okay, I can live with that." Neither one of them is reverting. They are both ''changing'' the text, in a back and forth method, trying to find a compromise. Does that make more sense? --]]] 20:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <s>] Your edit to ] has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added ] material to Misplaced Pages without evidence of ] from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read ] for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Misplaced Pages strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of ''information'', but not as a source of ''content'', such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy '''will be ]'''. See ] for more information. <!-- Template:uw-copyright -->⸺] 03:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)</s> | |||
| ::There was no change to the specific text and that's a real revert. | |||
| Withdrawn.⸺] 07:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Elonka wrote in part: Yes the wording in that specific quote is the same, but it's a quote, so of course it is going to be the same. | |||
| ::Based on what is a revert Ludwigs2 made a real revert. Is that clear enough for you? ] 20:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: To prove it was a revert, I would like to see a diff that shows an exact one-to-one correspondence between an original edit, and a new edit. If the wording is changed, or new sources are added, it is not a revert. It is clear that you are not understanding the definition of revert, in the context of the editing conditions. But that's why we have uninvolved administrators here. In the future, when you see something that you think is a revert, you can bring it up, but if an uninvolved admin says, "No, that's not a revert," then you should accept that and move on. Continuing to bring up the same thing over and over, is not helpful. Also, in terms of Ludwigs2's edits, he is obviously embarked on a major series of changes to the article. Rather than scrutinizing every edit, better would be to wait a few hours, until he's done, and then look at the entire set of changes. If he's just bit by bit reverting to an earlier version (which I don't think he is), it'll show up when he's done. There's no need to critique each small change. Please, try working on something else for awhile? There are many other areas of Misplaced Pages which could benefit from your attention. Check something at ], or add a stub to fill in a redlink, such as at ]. Or, just click on ] a few times. I usually find that within a dozen clicks, I have either found something that I want to fix, or at least tag as needing cleanup. :) --]]] 21:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==<s>CCI Notice</s>== | |||
| ::::Elonka wrote in part: Yes the wording in that specific quote is the same, but it's a quote, so of course it is going to be the same. | |||
| ::::Elonka acknowledged the text is the same. Readding the same text is clearly a revert per ]. | |||
| ::::but criticizes its rhetorical style as "perhaps not the best way to win an argument, especially with serious-minded people." | |||
| ::::but criticizes its rhetorical style as "perhaps not the best way to win an argument, especially with serious-minded people." | |||
| ::::Ludwigs2 .] 21:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Yes, the wording of that specific phrase is identical to a previous version of the article. If that was the ''only'' thing that he was restoring, then it would be a revert. But it's not the only thing he's restoring. He also is making many other changes, which seem to be a good faith effort to be sensitive to previous concerns, in an attempt to try and find a compromise version. That's not a revert, that's more of a "negotiative edit". Now please, stop calling it a revert, otherwise you may run afoul of ]. I recommend waiting a day, letting Ludwigs2 finish with his edits, and then you (or anyone else) can go in and continue to edit the article, in an attempt to change wording to something that you like better. Then Ludwigs2 (or anyone) can make their own edits, and back and forth. If certain phrases get restored and deleted in this back and forth process, that's okay, as it's part of consensus-building, as long as each side makes a good faith effort to try and find a compromise from previous versions. --]]] 21:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Elonka acknowledged: Yes, the wording of that specific phrase is identical to a previous version of the article. | |||
| :::::::Restoring deleted content is the definition of a revert. That's a revert, and not a "negotiative edit". | |||
| :::::::Making other changes does not change the fact that it was revert. The same text was restored which counts as a revert according to ]. | |||
| :::::::It is a revert (readding the same exact text) based on what is a revert per ]. ] 21:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::LOL, Elonka, I think you just gave the Wikilawyers an "out". Be prepared for lots of "reverts + other edits". I did warn you that you had to come down heavy on your side of the fence rather than just SA + Ronz. ] (]) 23:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The edit clearly was a revert and Elonka should stop claiming it was not a revert. ] 17:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <s>Hello, QuackGuru. This message is being sent to inform you that a '''request for a contributor copyright investigation''' has been filed at ] concerning your contributions to Misplaced Pages in relation to ]. The listing can be found ]. Thank you. <!--Template:CCI-notice--> ⸺] 04:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)</s> | |||
| <s>*Quackguru, obviously you disagree with several of the uninvolved admins over this particular edit and that's fine. However, continuing to insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong isn't going to change our opinions or get the other editor in trouble. Starting to make attacks, like accusing Elonka of lying, really isn't going to help your situation any and may end up with you being sanctioned. So please, lets just drop the concern over this one edit and get back to working on articles, ok? <font face="Tempus Sans ITC" color="#2B0066">] <sup>]</sup></font> 18:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :{{ping|Randomstaplers}} QuackGuru always followed sources very closely to minimize misinterpretation of what the source said but, as I remember, the wording was substantially rearranged and not a copyvio problem. I know copyright checking is painful and I don't want to add to the stress but would it be possible to give, say, two examples of text added to Misplaced Pages and the corresponding originals? I had a quick look at ] but found it hard to identify a problem. Perhaps you could add an example at ]. Thanks. ] (]) 05:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <s>::* @]: Go to https://copyvios.toolforge.org/ and paste in the URLs from the CCI. This is pretty bad.⸺] 05:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)</s> | |||
| Withdrawn. So far only one copyvio. Sorry for the trouble. I'll leave this up in case anyone else is confused. ⸺] 07:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@] Withdrawn the CCI, only one actual copyvio so far: this , with this . ⸺] 07:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I did not disagree with several of the uninvolved admins over this particular edit. Elonka is the only admin who commented specifically on this particular edit. Who are the several adims who disagree with me over this particular edit? ] 22:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] I've gone ahead and addressed it. Hoping that's all of them.⸺] 08:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for your work! ] (]) 09:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: QuackGuru, aside from debating about what is or isn't a revert, I would ask this: Do you like the ] article now? Personally, I have been pleased with how the article seems much more stable now, within just a few days. There is no longer any edit-warring, and the article has not needed to be re-protected. So, do you like it? Or is there anything that you think should be changed? If so, you are welcome to edit the article to make modifications. --]]] 19:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination for deletion of ] == | |||
| ]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> – ] (]) 05:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The only way I could fix the article would be to make some changes and make a partial revert to some text that was recently added. There was no consensus to readd the disputed text. I will not violate the conditioning of editing. ] 22:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Thank you for your change to the talkpage. :) As for editing the article, if you try to ''change'' the text to something different than it was before, that is not a revert. If you change the text, you would not be violating the conditions. I promise that if you try to make a change, in good faith, that I will not ban you by surprise. I would give you a warning first, and give you a chance to change what you did. A ban would only be used on someone that keeps breaking the conditions, and ignoring the warnings. So I encourage you to try and make changes if you want to. :) --]]] 20:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I want to make changes and improve the article. However, it may be precieved as a revert if I remove the weight violation from ref 43. ] 20:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: As long as you make a change that is a try to compromise, and is different from what has been tried before, it will probably not get in you in trouble. --]]] 20:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The entire paragraph is a weight violation. The information from each ref in the usefulness as a source section is a summary or a shgort sentence. A lengthy paragraph is a weight violation. It was shortened before then someone restored the lengthy parargraph. | |||
| :::::::The only way to fix the weight violation is to delete the entire paragraph and to keep the shorter sentence from the same ref. ] 17:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I hope you don't mind, QuackGuru, if I chime in here with my opinion. The way I see it is that the 3RR rule allows a certain amount of room for interpretation; therefore whoever is the admin handling a particular case has some freedom to use their judgement. Some things are clearly reverts; some are clearly not reverts; and some are in a gray area. When an uninvolved admin handling a case makes a decision on one of those, I think it's best if everyone just accepts it. I think the edits Elonka was describing above were in that gray area. If there has been a lot of disagreement over whether a certain word can appear in the article or not, then an edit including that word is probably a revert (although it might be in a gray area if you put a word like "somewhat" just before it); but just putting in something that happens to contain the word "and", when the word "and" had been deleted along with some other words previously, is almost certainly not a revert. Similar reasoning can apply to longer passages. Anyway, that's my interpretation of the policy, for what it's worth. <span style="color:Orangered; font-size:2em;">☺</span> ] (]) 14:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why do you see that the 3RR rule allows a certain amount of room for interpretation and what specific text of policy you came across to conclude your interpretation of policy. | |||
| :::Why do you think it's best if everyone just accepts it when an uninvolved admin makes a decision. | |||
| :::Why do you think the edits Elonka was describing above were in that gray area when the text was identical? ] 19:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Coppertwig, what do you think about this documented revert below. | |||
| :::Elonka, what are you going to do about this revert. | |||
| :::Here was my edit. | |||
| :::Here was a clear revert. | |||
| :::Where should this be reported? ] 18:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::LOL, unfortunately QG, certain editors will not have have action taken against them by certain admins. At least that is the ''evidence'' to date. Mind you, it would be very constructive to see the certain admins break out of their POV shells. ] (]) 05:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: QuackGuru, Shot info has been cautioned about reverting, and if he does it again, will be banned and/or blocked. However, it was a violation of ] for you to strike through the editing conditions. Better would have been for you to start a section on the talkpage with a diff of the revert, or post a note on my own talkpage. Thanks, --]]] 16:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It was a violation of ] by Elonka to accuse me of a point violation. | |||
| ::::::Ludwigs2 has made revert after revert but Ludwigs2 was not banned. | |||
| ::::::Here was my edit. | |||
| ::::::Here was a clear revert. | |||
| ::::::Elonka did a revert too. 0RR is not being strictly enforced. ] 17:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Here was a revert. The neutrality tag was removed a while ago. ] 17:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Elonka, your expose your biases. ] (]) 22:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: I have looked at QuackGuru's diffs. The first two do not show a revert, they show a legitimate change to the text. The article was not reverted to an earlier version, but instead changed to something different. The third diff was my change to the talkpage to fix the conditions for editing, which QuackGuru should not have been changing in the first place, since that section is for administrators only. The fourth diff does not look like a revert to me, but I am willing to review further evidence... When was the last time that the tag was on the article? --]]] 22:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::There is a location on the article's talkpage for you to clarify the rules. I have also returned the tag to the article. It will probably stay until editors can understand exactly how NPOV the article needs to be such that the tag can be removed to your satisfaction. BTW, Lugwids revert is clearly a revert, but it's not surprising that you miss it. ] (]) 23:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::You can check the article history for the last time the tag was in the article. | |||
| :::::::::::The conditioning of editing has failed the community. There is currently a WEIGHT violation in the article. Only a revert would fix it. | |||
| :::::::::::Elonka, please see ]. You should understand by now what is a revert. ] 02:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| (<<outdent) Sorry, when I commented earlier I didn't know the context of this discussion. At ], Elonka has posted a 0RR rule, and this rule includes a definition of "revert". This definition is different from the definition at 3RR. For this 0RR rule, it makes sense that it's the definition posted by Elonka that applies. Every definition, except perhaps in mathematics, has some gray areas. Since Elonka wrote the definition, I think Elonka has the prerogative to specify what it means in those gray areas. <span style="color:Orangered; font-size:1.9em;">☺</span> ] (]) 02:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The defintion of a revert is explained at ]. We don't make up our own definitions. ] 02:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Words have a variety of definitions. The person using a word usually gets to specify its meaning. Dictionaries usually list several meanings for a given word. In this case, Elonka has spelled out the definition to be used with this rule, like a good mathematician. I don't think you'll find any Misplaced Pages policy saying that defining words isn't allowed. Defining words is a normal part of communicating.<span style="color:Purple; font-size:1.9em;">☺</span> ] (]) 02:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: In this case, redefining 3RR is unexplained. ] should not be changed without consensus. Elonka is misdefining 3RR. ] 03:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't think Elonka is redefining 3RR. I think the ] still applies, just the same as ever. What Elonka has done is write a new rule. Elonka wrote, in part (points 1,2 and 5 in the original): | |||
| {{blockquote|::::* 0RR, meaning '''No reverts''', except for obvious vandalism. | |||
| ::::* A "revert" is defined as something that might be done with the "undo" or "rollback" buttons, or any manual edit which effectively does a clean revert to a previous version of the article. However, ''changes'' to the work of other editors are allowed, and even encouraged, ''as long as an attempt is made to try different compromise wording than what has been tried in the past''. ... | |||
| ::::* If you see someone add something that you disagree with, '''don't revert it, ''change'' it'''. Specifically: Try to change it to a compromise wording, or add some (sourced) alternate view wording nearby.}} | |||
| ::::Elonka could have written those parts of the new rule it like this instead: | |||
| {{blockquote|::::*Do not use the "undo" or "rollback" button or do a clean revert to a previous version of the article, unless you're reverting vandalism. However, ''changes'' to the work of other editors are allowed, and even encouraged, ''as long as an attempt is made to try different compromise wording than what has been tried in the past''. | |||
| ::::*If you see someone add something that you disagree with, don't do a clean revert of it to a previous version of the article; instead, ''change'' it'''. Specifically: Try to change it to a compromise wording, or add some (sourced) alternate view wording nearby.}} | |||
| ::::Elonka might or might not agree that my paraphrase means the same thing as those parts of Elonka's rule. My paraphrase doesn't create any new definitions. | |||
| ::::Assigning new definitions to words or symbols is like writing subroutines in computer programs. It allows one to avoid repetition and express things concisely. However, if you prefer that people avoid writing new definitions, you might like to act as if Elonka wrote the above paraphrase instead of what Elonka actually wrote. Watch out for those gray areas, though. If you collaborate in a friendly way on the talk page, probably everything will be fine. <span style="color:Orangered; font-size:1.8em;">☺</span> ] (]) 00:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::According to what rule we can make new rules and ignore 'what is a revert' per ]. ] 00:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::When interpreting 3RR, one uses the proper definition of the word for that. When reading my paraphrase above, the same definition can be used. I see no problem with using the same word in a different context to mean something different, as Elonka has done. However, no one is ignoring that when applying the 3RR, the "what is a revert" section of that policy has to be used. Please note that at ], it says ''"A revert, '''in this context''', means..."'' (emphasis mine). Elonka's rule is a different context. <span style="color:Green; font-size:1.9em;">☺</span> ] (]) 01:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If Elonka's rule is a different context that means ] is not being applied. When "what is a revert" section of that policy is not used it is being ignored. ] 01:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It's fine to temporarily ignore a definition which is irrelevant in the context one is currently considering. We naturally do that all the time, since most words have several possible definitions. Doing that is quite different from "ignoring" a policy in the sense of carelessly violating it. When considering whether 3RR is being violated or not, the definition of revert from the 3RR page is used. <span style="color:Green; font-size:1.8em;">☺</span> ] (]) 01:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::We should not ignore the defintion of a revert when it is relevant to the article. What is a revert is relevant and should not be changed to a new definition of a revert without consensus. ] 01:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Can we agree to disagree about that? I believe that a person expressing themself in a signed comment on a talk page can use words to mean what they want them to mean. You believe definitions of words should be more constant. I don't think either one of us is going to convince the other. I don't think there's any policy supporting one view or the other. | |||
| :::::::::::However, I'm guessing that what you may be concerned about is that if you assume Elonka's definition is being applied and edit on that basis, then another administrator may use the 3RR definition of revert and block you for violating 0RR. I think you're wise to and discuss things on the talk page first, to be on the safe side; although, on the other hand, to change the article if you have a problem with it. ] (]) 02:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::It may be more wise not to proceed and avoid such editing conditions that are vague and against standard Misplaced Pages policy. ] 17:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| (<<outdent) Unfortunately, the result may be, then, that only the boldest editors continue to edit the page, leading to greater conflict. However, others can contribute on the talk page and may have a moderating influence by doing that. <br/>I wouldn't say that it's against standard Misplaced Pages policy: I'd say that it's in addition to standard Misplaced Pages policy, and I don't think it's any more vague than the standard Misplaced Pages policy is. Are you saying it's "against" standard Misplaced Pages policy because a different definition of "revert" is used? What about the paraphrasing I gave above, which doesn't use any new definitions? <br/>You could try, perhaps, asking on the talk page whether a certain edit would be considered a revert; though it probably makes more sense to ask whether an edit has the support of other editors. In any case, I think it's a good idea to be careful. <span style="color:Orangered; font-size:2.1em;">☺</span> ] (]) 13:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The see also section has an unnecessary link. There is also duplication in the article. The same ref and similar sentences are duplicated in the article. If I remove one of the similar sentences it would count as a revert. Clearly, the conditions of editing will never work. ] 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think I understand what you mean; however, I think removing a sentence would probably not violate Elonka's rule. She didn't apply 0RR using the definition of revert from 3RR, in order to avoid the sort of stagnation you describe. However, whether the conditions will "work" may depend on one's goals. If the primary goal of the uninvolved admins is to minimize wikidrama, then even if the problems you describe cannot be overcome, the conditions may still "work" almost as effectively as page-protection. | |||
| ::What's your goal in this discussion? | |||
| ::Why aren't you making suggestions for edits at ]? You had made a suggestion on July 22; why not make a more specific version of the same suggestion, involving other changes too aimed at trying to reach compromise, in order to comply with Elonka's rule? <span style="color:Green; font-size:2em;">☺</span> ] (]) 15:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Elonka's rule is against Misplaced Pages policy. | |||
| ::: Here are two refs I was going to add to the article. The article can be improved but I think I have lost interest. ] 03:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Lets see what happens== | |||
| I wonder if the powers that be will regard as being different to ? Wonder it will be yes more evidence of bias? Will be interesting to see what happens. ] (]) 01:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :LOL, a prediction - I bet you that will receive a warning while won't :-). O only to have the faith to overcome the ''evidence''. ] (]) 02:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Dealing with false statements == | |||
| Re your comment ''"Shell Kinney has made false statements on my talk page to support Elonka. ... I striked the dishonesty"'' | |||
| Shell implied you were accusing Elonka of lying. I think Shell was wrong about that. I think you weren't accusing Elonka of lying. <br/><small> But I think it's better not to say "dishonesty". It's better to just say "that's false".</small> <br/>It's all because people disagree about definitions of "revert". <span style="color:Purple; font-size:1.8em;">☺</span> ] (]) 22:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I see people misdefining what is a revert and creating new defintions which are not based on any Misplaced Pages policy. Elonka knows it was a real revert in the context of 3RR. I could explain more if needed if Elonka denies it. ] 06:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:07, 30 December 2024
This user is taking a kit kat-break.
Check sources
www.scoop.it/t/the-future-of-e-cigarette
http://www.economist.com/topics/electronic-cigarettes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/electronic-cigarettes/
Speedy deletion of Draft:Ayurveda
If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
The page Draft:Ayurveda has been speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appeared to be a direct copy from https://medium.com/@seozenius/ayurveda-the-ancient-indian-system-of-medicine-is-based-on-the-principle-of-maintaining-a-balance-d37f47436f0d. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Misplaced Pages to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Misplaced Pages's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Vaping for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vaping, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vaping until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Copyvio on Health effects of electronic cigarettes
Your edit to Health effects of electronic cigarettes has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Misplaced Pages strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Misplaced Pages:Copying text from other sources for more information. ⸺RandomStaplers 03:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
CCI Notice
Hello, QuackGuru. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Misplaced Pages in relation to Misplaced Pages's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. Thank you. ⸺RandomStaplers 04:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Randomstaplers: QuackGuru always followed sources very closely to minimize misinterpretation of what the source said but, as I remember, the wording was substantially rearranged and not a copyvio problem. I know copyright checking is painful and I don't want to add to the stress but would it be possible to give, say, two examples of text added to Misplaced Pages and the corresponding originals? I had a quick look at Health effects of electronic cigarettes but found it hard to identify a problem. Perhaps you could add an example at Talk:Health effects of electronic cigarettes. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
::* @Johnuniq: Go to https://copyvios.toolforge.org/ and paste in the URLs from the CCI. This one is pretty bad.⸺RandomStaplers 05:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Withdrawn. So far only one copyvio. Sorry for the trouble. I'll leave this up in case anyone else is confused. ⸺RandomStaplers 07:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq Withdrawn the CCI, only one actual copyvio so far: this Diff, with this document. ⸺RandomStaplers 07:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq I've gone ahead and addressed it. Hoping that's all of them.⸺RandomStaplers 08:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your work! Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq I've gone ahead and addressed it. Hoping that's all of them.⸺RandomStaplers 08:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Weasel word some span
Template:Weasel word some span has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)